The Heresy of Infant Baptism
Index for THIS site
IS INFANT BAPTISM BIBLICAL?
THE ABOMINATION OF INFANT BAPTISM
CIRCUMCISION AND INFANT BAPTISM
EXPERIENCE PROVES NO NEW BIRTH
SACRAMENTAL BAPTISM UNREASONABLE
WHAT ABOUT
BABIES DYING BEFORE BAPTISM?
Almost the entirety of the Christian Church believes that children may be baptised to make them members of the Church. Many people today find it disturbing that the Church uses blackmail to make sure this is done thus keeping its membership up. What is more disturbing is that the Catholic Church says baptism takes away much of your desire to sin but this claim is refuted by experience! If priests were doctors they would be seen for the charlatans that they are and yet they claim to be doctors for the soul with baptism as a cure for sin. What an unfair world we live in. They are the ones that say spiritual sickness is more serious than physical sickness and they have the nerve to condemn quackery! What about their spiritual quackery?
IS INFANT BAPTISM BIBLICAL?
Is infant baptism biblical? Arguments
for or against it will also be relevant to the baptism of any person who does
not have the development or the maturity to comprehend what they are doing to
and what is being done to them.
Some simply argue that since baptism is to be done by total immersion
that babies cannot be baptised.
Infant baptism and baptism of those who haven’t attend to the use of
reason isn’t mentioned in the Bible.
Catholics argue that the household baptisms in their scripture (Acts
It is childish to insist that because Peter instructed the people to be
baptised because the promise of salvation was made to them and their children
that he was advocating infant baptism (Acts
We read that Jesus does not discriminate against men and women, between
Jew and Greek (Galatians
Consider this, in the past it was nearly always Europeans who were
baptised. People then from other races
were looked down on as not being the children of God. This had the same effect as racism. Even today Christianity denies that people
from certain races that have not been presented with its gospel are the
children of God. This encourages
discrimination and offends these races and scares them and makes many of them
racist. When that is taught it is so
easy to find racism acceptable. It is
time the law did something about the racist-friendly doctrine of baptismal
salvation.
Those who argue that since the epistles tell children to be good
(Colossians
Only believers are baptised in scripture.
It says that unbelievers must be baptised which does not mean that
infants are not to be. It is a mistake
to read Mark 16:16 which tells us that he who believes and is baptised will be
saved and that he who does not believe will be damned and conclude that babies
are not to be baptised for they cannot believe.
Jesus may only have adults in mind.
Maybe the verse isn’t about water baptism at all but the spiritual
baptism of being filled with the Holy Spirit.
Does the rule, “Nobody can come in here without asking permission”, mean
that babies are excluded?
The practice of infant baptism is based on the idea that babies can’t be
saved without it and since God wants all to be saved he must want babies
baptised. The problem is that God never
said that it is unchristened babies that are barred from Heaven. Maybe if God won’t forgive a baby he will do
the moment it dies. It is most probable
that the Bible teaches that only those with the intelligence to accept the
gospel will be saved and the rest will be damned. The Bible says that God wants all to be saved
which implies that though he might make it a duty to have a baby baptised as
quickly as possible he will not penalise the baby if it is not baptised and he
certainly has no use for sending it or anybody to Hell.
Infant baptism is not mentioned in the Bible. The Bible would undoubtedly be superstitious
if it was. It is safe to hold that it
forbids infant baptism by implication though it does not expressly forbid
it. We shall see in a moment that the
New Testament doctrine that God is love implies that infant baptism is evil and
impermissible.
Jesus said on one occasion that he did not want the little children to be
prevented from coming to him for “such as these” were entitled to the
Does 1 Corinthians 7:14 which says that the children of a Christian who
is married to a heathen are holy mean that they are conceived without original
sin (making baptism unnecessary) or cleansed from it in baptism? The verse alleges that the pagan spouse of a
Christian is sanctified because of being married to a Christian. This cannot mean that God treats an unholy
pagan as holy just because he or she is married to one of his own. The verse must mean that the Christian makes
her or his family holy by good example or more probably that God treats them as
sacred for they are part of the Christian’s life and help the Christian to be
holy even if only by letting the Christian be kind to them. The latter is likely right for the Bible has
nothing spiritually positive to say about pagans. The people in themselves are not holy. The verse doesn’t mention baptism.
THE ABOMINATION OF INFANT BAPTISM
Infant baptism is often called Christening. In other words, it is reckoned to make a
child a Christian. But if God commanded
infant baptism he might not regard it as making a child a Christian or a member
of the Christian family. He would demand
it as something that the child could accept later on and which will not make
the child a Christian until then. God
has no respect for freedom if he makes a child a Christian when it cannot think
for itself. He may need to force some
things on a child like who its parents are and what kind of place it lives in
but with religion and spiritual matters it is different for he has no need to
force them on anybody. That is why it
would be immoral. Unnecessary forcing is
bad.
The Church says that we were made without our consent so we can be
baptised without it to for baptism is birth into the family of God.
But God could not ask us before he made us if we wanted to be made so
that is different. He could ask us if we
want to be born into his family. So he
could let us die as babies and then ask us or he could let us grow up to decide
for ourselves.
To baptise a child is to take advantage of her by putting her in a
religion when she can’t speak for herself.
What happens is that the child is superficially a member for joining a
religion is about what is in the heart.
What happens is that a person who is not a member at all is counted as a
member. Some would reply that it is theft or spiritual kidnapping. If the child is baptised as a Catholic, and
then circumcised as a Jew then what religion does it belong to for it cannot
belong to both. If it cannot belong to
both then it belongs to neither.
To raise a child to believe in religion is conditioning and trapping
her. No one has the right to do that to
a child which is why infant baptism exists so that there might be an excuse for
doing it. It fulfils its function for it
makes people fail to see how abhorrent this is.
Don’t baptise babies and let them grow up to decide for themselves. When there are so many different religions
about it has to be up to each person themselves. Infant baptism and other religious initiation
rites preformed on children are wrong.
They are an insult to the child and no truly loving parents would put
their baby through it. The Catholic
tradition is particularly possessive and holds that once you are baptised an
indelible mark is put on your soul forever marking you out as belonging to the
What makes it ten times worse is the fact that the vast majority of the children
will grow up to reject most of what the Church teaches. They seem to reject it quicker if they know
it well. Most know enough to make a negative decision. The Roman Catholic Church insists that the
babies born in a mixed marriage must be made and raised as Catholics which is
cruel towards non-Catholics. Why cause
so much trouble over babies being baptised Catholics when they will more than
likely cease to be authentic Catholics anyway?
How can the Church with its cynicism based on Jesus Christ and Romans 3,
which say we are more likely to do bad in God’s eyes than good and more likely
to refuse to accept the word of God, say that babies should be baptised for
they will probably serve her as true followers anyway? This is the religion that decrees that babies
should not be baptised if their “Catholic” parents will not make true Catholics
of them. Church tradition says that
babies should only be baptised if the parents or godparents will indoctrinate
them.
Children are not given any real chance to freely accept the faith and
have real belief for they are not told about any alternatives. And the Church says that free will to choose
God or reject him is not conferred until about seven years of age. It converts children before that which
amounts to manipulating them to serve God and herself without concern for their
will or dignity. How could such faith be
real when it is not free? The children
were brainwashed. How can religion say
that free will explains why God can love us and let us suffer when children who
don’t have it suffer and don’t have a protective force field around them? Is it right to baptise children into a
religion that is that inconsistent about the rightness of their being allowed
by God to suffer?
Unfortunately, there is a great deal of prejudice against people who do
not get their babies baptised. We must
fight against prejudices against goodness instead of going along with them for
they will always be around but will get fewer when our outrage gets more
common.
Infant baptism is only a priestly scheme to win power. When people are baptised it is easier for the
Church to get to them and influence them because they think of themselves as
belonging to the Church. The Church is
unsure of themselves when they depend on exploitation to get converts. The exploitation of children is the most
cowardly method a religion can use to propagate itself. Not only is the child treated like a being
that owes the Church allegiance but is encouraged by the mere performance of
the rite to consider himself more likely to be true to God than a person who
was not baptised. It encourages looking
down on the unbaptised.
Infant baptism is diminishing the right of the child to be her own
person. Your husband or wife or mother
or father or politician or president will not claim the right to tell you what
to think though they will at times tell you what it is your duty to do but the
Church in the name of God will.
Therefore infant baptism is intended to get the child dominated and
controlled by the Church. Politicians
are often corrupt and yet there can be no greater corruption than that in many
of the clergy who claim the right to absolute power over the minds of their
victims. Submission to God is really
about submission to his representatives through whom he acts.
The Scientologists and the Moonies brainwash adults but it is far worse
to brainwash children and the Christian clergy use baptism as the gateway to
achieving that. The Roman Catholic
Church has scarier doctrines than either of these two sects which is very
worrying. I have heard it said that the
only reason it is not recognised for the fanatical cult it is, is because it
does not have the resources to instigate brainwashing, except in the case of
children, and dares not install them with the whole world watching. If so then the Church is too powerful and
high profile to get away with starting an obvious brainwashing program for
adults. Yet it is undeniable that many
Catholics are indeed brainwashed thoroughly but many are brainwashed a bit –
consider the fear parents have associated with the thought of not getting their
child baptised as an instance. The
Church has injurious doctrines such as original sin and everlasting punishing
to name but a few with which it hopes to brainwash to some extent by implanting
fear so that the victims can’t think for themselves. Evoking fear is a powerful way to brainwash
and truth be known is the essence of what brainwashing is all about. That Catholics bring their babies to be
handcuffed to a religion using underhand tactics is sufficient proof that they
are indeed brainwashed themselves and warns us that religion is has potential
for great harm and warps the minds even of those who only get involved a tiny
bit. Religionists need help before the
corruption does too much damage.
CIRCUMCISION AND INFANT BAPTISM
Some Christians endeavour to sustain the view that the Bible is amenable
to the idea of infant baptism for it requires infant circumcision.
The theologians’ view is that circumcision and baptism are signs of the
removal of sin by Jesus Christ. They say
that the only difference between the two signs was that the first pictured
salvation through the future blood of
Christ and the second pictured salvation that did not need blood any more for
it resulted from the once for all bloody death of Jesus. Circumcision and baptism would be seen as the
one sacrament except that the outward sign was altered but the grace is the
same. If baptism was a sign that there
was no more need for blood then there is a problem. Why would God want to picture the fact that
there was to be no more blood spilled for sins instead of the fact that blood
has saved us from sin and made us righteous?
It makes more sense to retain the bloody rite of circumcision for it is
a more appropriate picture of salvation by the blood of Jesus. Not, it needs to be said, that the doctrine that
the circumcision pictures anything to do with the blood of Christ. It is just one of the Christian lies and
fantasies.
If circumcision is anything like baptism then why is it that only men
receive circumcision? What about
women? If circumcision is like baptism
enough to mean that if babies are circumcised then babies should be baptised
then women cannot be baptised. If
anybody tries to baptise women then it is invalid and not a real baptism at
all.
Never does the Old Testament claim that circumcision was a sign of
salvation but as a sign of becoming part of the divine political and earthly
agenda. Deuteronomy 30:6 may be cited
against this but it merely says that one must have one’s heart circumcised
which is a metaphorical way of saying that the badness in it must be cut
away. Even Colossians 2:11 does not say
that physical circumcision represents salvation for it also speaks of
metaphorical circumcision in which badness is cut away from the spirit. Accordingly, if babies were circumcised it
does not mean that they can be baptised.
Paul said that true circumcision is in the heart and is not physical and
that a real Jew has the circumcision in the heart (Romans
We read in the Covenant Reformed News, Volume 7, Number 13 that in
Paul’s teaching, “To be circumcised is to be baptised!” This is totally wrong.
Circumcision of boys was the initiation rite of the Old Testament and it was
done on babies. It made them a part of
God’s racial segregation system.
Paedo-baptists insist that since the initiation of babies was not
expressly done away in the New Testament we are to initiate babies into the
In the Old Testament the circumcised Hebrews made up the chosen
people. Since a baby boy was born a
member of God’s political kingdom he had to be circumcised as a mark of
this. He was marked because he was
chosen by God. He was chosen to be
circumcised. He was not chosen because
he was circumcised. Many Christians say
that in the New Testament, water baptism is probably the same – if it is
commanded in it at all. Nobody knows who
God chooses to be among his people now for there are different nations and
colours not like
TRADITION AND INFANT BAPTISM
Most of the
The most important
“orthodox” Church figure of the second century next to Irenaeus was St Justin
Martyr. He wrote that we become the
children of God through choice and knowledge and find the remission of sins in
the baptismal waters. So about 150 AD,
infant baptism was unknown.
GO TO LIMBO?
The Catholic Church taught for centuries that babies cannot go to Heaven
unless they are christened. That view
isn’t as popular today - understandably.
Yet the only advice the insensitive Catechism of the Catholic Church can
offer is unbaptised babies that die should be left to the mercy of God and how
important it is to get babies baptised (1261).
It does not care about people who want to know one way or the other
where their baby is.
The Roman Church has infallibly defined that John 3:5 in which Jesus states that a man has to be born of water and the spirit to enter the divine kingdom, refers to water baptism at the Council of Trent. The word man is taken to mean every man and woman and child and baby on earth needs baptism. But the same gospel has Jesus saying that God doesn't blame you for what isn't your fault. So if you are a baby and you die without baptism that is not your fault. If you die when your parents intended to have you baptised only with your consent as you got older that is not your fault. Jesus actually said a man has to be born of water and wind. Water and wind symbolise the Holy Spirit so Jesus was really saying everybody has to be born of the Spirit to be saved and was not requiring real water. Babies then will be saved the moment after death for they will embrace the love of the Spirit.
The sincere Catholic would have to assert that
the baby that dies without baptism must be excluded from Heaven. If the Bible is the inspired word of God then
We are told that St Augustine did not actually say that unbaptised babies
would go to eternal fire but he did say they would have to pay an everlasting
penalty but are still better off for being born (Radio Replies Volume 3,
Question 809). He was sure about there
being some kind of penalty for them in Hell but he admitted that he did not
know how great the penalty would be. The
fact of the matter is that Augustine did not deny that they would go to eternal
fire and be damned. Because Augustine is
a prime source of unerring Catholic tradition which is meant to supplement and
explain the Bible the Church pretends that when he said babies are condemned to
everlasting punishment he did not mean to eternal damnation. If he had he would have been clear about
that. The interpretation made by others
that the God of Augustine sentences babies to Hell forever and curses them is
correct (page 460, Vicars of Christ).
The theological expert, St Robert Bellarmine stated that the Catholic
Faith was positive that Christ damns children who die without baptism forever
so he considered Limbo to be a part of Hell (page 65, But The Bible Does Not
Say So). Through most of the history
of the Church this terrible doctrine was accepted as orthodox (page 452, 461,
473, Vicars of Christ).
Some say, “Jesus
never said that the
The Council of Florence which claimed to be infallible decreed that
unforgiven original sin will make one go down to Hell forever even if there is
no other sin (page 25, Objections to Roman Catholicism). This accords with the claim that Limbo is on
the borders of Hell being the mildest Hell there is.
The Council of Trent infallibly decreed that the babies which are not
baptised whether they be the children of Catholics or pagans are born to
everlasting torment and everlasting perdition (page 146, The Crisis of Moral
Authority, Don Cupitt).
Pius VI in 1794 officially forbade disbelief in Limbo which he understood
as being Hell without the fire (page 86, Reason and Belief).
The Catholic book, Why Does God? says that since baptism is called
the new birth it is as essential for entry into Heaven as natural birth is for
entry into this world and that since a baby is not able to desire baptism it
cannot get the soul saving effects of a baptism of desire – like somebody who
prepares for baptism but dies suddenly before the ceremony can who God gives
some of the effects of baptism without the ceremony in order to make it
possible for him to get into Heaven - and strictly the only way a baby can be
saved is by literal personal water baptism when alive (page 161).
The Church says unbaptised babies go to a place called Limbo meaning
border as the result of a process of elimination. It would be cruel to send them to Hell we are
told. But you cannot say that because
the Catholic God has deprived them of blessings because of Adam and he is fair
so if he can do that he can send them to Hell for they deserve it. And the Church says they can’t go to Heaven
because they haven’t the maturity to choose Heaven. Incidentally, this is a lie for they also
teach that baptised babies get into Heaven and God gave the unbaptised the
power to choose. He can find a way for the
unbaptised babies who go to Limbo to mature so that they can choose.
Some say that Limbo is a
Let us test the concept of a paradise Limbo.
The babies will be fairly happy there without God the supreme source of
happiness because they don’t know what they are missing. They can’t be perfectly happy for the Church
says you need full and tangible union with God for that. But shouldn’t God let them grow up in that
world like they do here so that they can choose him? The Church says that he doesn’t have to
because he doesn’t owe them any favours – they are too young to deserve them
(question 711, Radio Replies, Vol 1).
This is how she safeguarded the justice of God.
But she didn’t succeed. Only cruel
clergy could think she did. You can’t
deserve the power to choose or disdain the Lord. But a really good God would let you have the
chance when he believes in giving us the power of free will. He could give the unbaptised babies the power
and the intelligence to use it after death.
When God has made us for himself as religion says we cannot be happy if
he holds us, especially babies, away from him.
To exclude anyone from God is a severe and hurtful punishment and they
will despise the blessings they have as poor substitutes. Pining for God is supposed to be an intrinsic
part of human personality.
If God is loving
he lets baptised babies into Heaven. To
love is to seek union in fellowship with someone. God does not love the unbaptised babies when
he won’t admit them into his presence. A
good God can’t have favourites so he can’t be more generous to some people than
others. When he forgives forgotten
crimes he should forgive the original sin of a child which is more worthy for
it is not the child’s fault. The child
does not deserve to be in original sin no matter what the Church says.
And it is obviously malicious to assert that God ought to punish babies
in Limbo for a sin they never committed.
The notion of Limbo is anathema to anyone with sense. I have heard even Catholics say that it
proves how low the Church would stoop to blackmail parents to give her their
children. I would say that is more true
of the Church in the past but is partly true today.
Some Catholics hope that Limbo will be closed down by God some day so
that the prisoners can float up to Heaven.
Not a very brilliant presumption considering that God could have done
this from the start. Limbo presents us
with a capricious God. God could just as
easily abandon them forever.
The Bible does not say that unbaptised babies will be saved or at least
at peace. Though it forbids making
dogmas that are not implicitly or explicitly spelled out on its pages it
follows that we have to say that Limbo exists to be on the safe side. It is implying that Limbo exists. Could it be said that when it says God is
love that it implies the opposite? No
for it does say we suffer by divine decree for Adam’s sin by being prone to sin
and death so God is not so keen on making us holy. God laid punishments on Adam and Eve in
Genesis that have been passed on to us implying God has rejected us with them
and up until modern times it was babies and children that had the worst deal.
Nobody can believe that a mass murderer can go to confession and end up
in Heaven from which harmless babies are eternally debarred just because their parents
didn’t get the priest to cast a spell on them.
It is the height of religious sectarianism. They need to ask themselves some serious
questions about what is in them that makes them willing to believe such a
thing.
Jesus died for all sin including Adam’s, the sin that babies carry that
is known as original sin. Because he
paid divine justice for the sins we committed it follows that he paid for the
original sin that taints babies. Babies
then should be conceived without original sin.
So God goes out of his way to hurt them when they are born with it for
he is the one that can prevent original sin.
To be born without the grace of God is to be born degraded. It is a degradation that begins at conception.
It must be a punishment. The Church says that degradation is worse
than pain for the Church commands you to die rather than give up your love for
God. This tells us that God could
certainly sentence them to eternal pain when he degrades them for that is a
lesser evil than degrading them. Now if
Jesus had not atoned on the cross what would become of babies who die? Probably the same as what happens to
unbaptised babies now. It would surely
be better for God to give Adam and Eve ten billion years of life to have babies
that all die so that all are fine in Limbo than to have things the way they are
and many people having grown up to go to Hell.
Better for all babies to die than for one to be eternally damned. The fact that we grow up must mean that babies
are better off growing up even though some of them go to Hell. That would only be true if all babies dying
would sentence them all to eternal damnation.
So God lets them grow up so that some of them will escape.
One out of three zygotes die unknown to the mother. Limbo is the home of at least this one third
of the human race. How unkindly God is!
Today, the consensus is that it is best for babies to have them baptised
and it should be done at all costs though we can’t be sure why it is. This is still a terrifying doctrine for
anybody who is in danger of miscarrying.
If you believe that people are better off dead than suffering intensively
when they are not getting better, you will hold that the Bible teaching that
babies deserve death because of Adam’s sin is not as bad as the teaching of
some Christians that they should go to Hell forever. If you agree with the view that life is so
important than even such suffering wouldn’t justify ending the life then it
would be blasphemy for you to say then in that case that an all-good God would
not send babies to Hell when he kills them.
Killing them would be worse if life is so important.
The real origin of Limbo was in hearts that were going to make sure
nobody would dare defy the Church and not have their child enrolled as a
member.
EXPERIENCE PROVES NO NEW BIRTH
The Bible says that when you get saved or born again you cease to have
the old sin nature, that is, instead of being inevitably selfish and doing
everything for an ulterior motive, God changes you into a new person who does
not have to sin anymore. So the new
birth will result in a changed life.
Paul said that we die when born again to rise to a new life with
God. He said we put off the old man and
put on the new man in Jesus Christ.
The Bible calls what happens when we become a member of the Christian
Church the new birth because it is a birth to a new and changed life in which
we lovingly do good works for God.
Catholic baptism cannot be the new birth when even a person who has no
intention of loving God can receive it validly and be made a member of the
Church. All it does in such cases is put
a mark on the soul and you need more than to be entitled to be called
reborn. When we are born into this world
we are born into a new kind of life so the idea behind calling spiritual
transformation rebirth is that we enter a new life and put the life of sin
behind us. The Church would decree that
baptisms contracted in insincerity should be repeated if it knew what it was
talking about.
Then considering what the Bible says, why are those who are baptised as
infants no more moral and so often worse and more devious and deceptive than
those who have been reborn in adulthood?
Experience shows that baptism of infants does not work and so is
immoral. It is a waste of time. It is null and void.
In 1944 the Church of England found that though 66% of children were
baptised only 9% went forward for confirmation and only about 3-4% had any
interest in religion (page 12, The Only Way of Salvation). If there were any power in baptism many more
would be interested in religion. If the
Church really cared about God and the new birth it would make sure that only
people who showed evidence of being born again would be permitted to proceed to
the sacrament of confirmation. Without
that evidence there is no reason to hold that the candidates accepted the
regeneration offered to them in baptism.
Original sin is in essence my self-will.
It is the desire to get my own way and not God’s. But that never goes away because anything I
do I know I do it to satisfy some urge in me.
Even if I dash to the vet with my neighbour’s sick dog I am doing it
because I like to. I like it enough to
do it even if I say and feel I hate doing it.
I am not doing it for God even if I believe I do but for my
feelings. I am like this all the time so
baptism is just a human rite devoid of divine power because it does not forgive
original sin. It is still there as
strong as ever. Moreover, the more good
I do the further I am away from God’s will for then it is harder to see that I
am motivated by good my way and not his way.
The person who does good with a godless motive is nearly impossible to
convert to God unlike the openly defiant sinner who sees her or his blackness
in all its infernal grandeur. It is my
perception of good I care about not his rules.
Christian parents are being naïve if they think some water on their baby
is going to help it and the world. All
it does is start the child on a regime that grooms it for self-deception.
What the Church calls original sin, Humanism calls self-esteem and
self-esteem is the root of all human goodness so the doctrine of original sin
is totally destructive and any believer that escapes this destruction escapes
in so far as he or she accepts his or her right to be his or her own God. Self-will or original sin permeates all my
thoughts and feelings and actions therefore the Protestant and biblical
doctrine of total depravity (that nobody can do anything to please God for all
are sinful) is true assuming self-will is depravity. But it is undeniable that we are wholly
anti-god. The Roman Church knows that
total depravity is true and still it denies it – it blesses sin by pretending
not to notice.
SACRAMENTAL BAPTISM UNREASONABLE
It is belittling God to teach that he keeps babies in original sin until
the priest empties a jug on them. He
does not love them when he is not anxious to make them his children as quickly
as possible.
It is not a very nice person who would praise a God who will not regard innocent
babies as his friends and children until an eccentric in strange robes splashes
them with holy water. The Catholic
Church defends her this God claiming that the babies do not deserve salvation. But the babies haven’t done anything. The Church agrees and then informs us that it
is because they haven’t that God has the right to look upon them with
wrath. But he could look on them with
love. When he has a choice he should
pick the best. He would pick love if he
were love.
The Church says that if you would be baptised but can’t be God will
understand and you will be made as good as baptised the very moment you die but
under very strict conditions.
As long as you delay making your child a friend of God you are willing
the child’s separation from God and that must be a sin. And it must be child-abuse.
Why don’t Catholics baptise babies in the womb with syringes as a
rule?
At the end of the day, though baptised believers in infant baptism claim
that they do not consider themselves any better or worse than an unbaptised
baby they do. If you have God in your
heart you are better than the person who has not. The doctrine of baptism they have is the stuff
from which racism is made.
Religious fanaticism is when a religion fails to live and believe in such
a way that no harm is done if the religion turns out to be untrue. This is fanaticism. It is no better than the spirit that leads
the Catholic Church to inflict the fear of a priest not coming in time on a
dying person.
Most so-called Christians have no problem contravening the rules of the
Church on marriage so it is hard to see how they put so much emphasis on
getting babies baptised.
WHAT ABOUT BABIES DYING BEFORE BAPTISM?
The Catholic Church teaches that a person can be saved by gaining some of
the effects of baptism through a baptism of desire or baptism of blood. If a man desires baptism and dies before
managing to get baptised he will go to Heaven.
This is the baptism of desire. If
a man gives his life for the faith though he is not baptised he is considered
to get what is called the baptism of blood and he will go to Heaven. The Church stresses that these are not
sacraments and are not equal to baptism but another way to get rid of the sin
that baptism takes away. The Church says
these fit the rule given by Christ that only water shall save for the waters of
baptism still save these people in the sense that it is in deference to baptism
that these saving effects are allowed to take place. The doctrine of baptism of blood and baptism
of desire is wholly unscriptural. God
would not like you to say that a sinner can be saved by getting rid of sin
these ways when an innocent and helpless baby cannot be saved without literal
baptism in water. And Jesus could
baptise the people who desire baptism and who have the baptism of blood with
water on entry into Heaven. That he does
not do so is a testament to the doctrine of the blood baptism and the desire baptism
being false. They are supposed to be
allowed by God for water baptism is the only way to salvation but if Jesus does
not baptise the recipients of the desire or blood baptism then water baptism
cannot be the only way. If water baptism
were the only way then the blessings of blood or desire baptism would arise not
from blessings given without a view to water baptism but from blessings given
in advance of water baptism in the same way you might get your wages before you
earn them in view of the fact that you will earn them.
The Church teaches that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation but
that in extreme cases people get the grace of baptism in the baptism of blood
and baptism of desire which are not technically baptisms. They distinguish between the grace of baptism
and the form of the sacrament. In other words, desire for the sacrament gives
you its effects when you are dying unbaptised.
The scenario when somebody runs to a baby with water to baptise it but it
dies first leaving it too late does not fit the rules for baptism of desire.
The baby didn’t desire the baptism but somebody else did but baptism of desire
requires that the candidate of baptism desire the baptism. The baby is in original sin and so doesn’t
like God and so nobody can assume that the baby has a desire to be with
God. Some liberal clergy think that if a
baby dies before its baptism because it was intended for it to be baptised the
baby will be saved and given the powers of baptism without the water. The baby then is saved by baptism
indirectly. But this can be said of any
baby. Imagine a baby dies without
baptism at the North Pole and there are no Christians within ten thousand miles
what then? The Christians would baptise
the baby if they could so the baby then will be treated by God as baptised
though it is not for it is nobody’s fault the baby wasn’t baptised. This kindly and compassionate idea however is
destroyed by the fact that they think Jesus said water baptism is necessary for
salvation. If nobody was baptising
anybody. Babies would still be saved so
how could it be true to say that water baptism saves? It denies the urgency and importance of
water baptism.
A big objection to the view that any baby baptised or not will be saved
by the effects that baptism brings if it dies is that it makes the baby’s death
more important than the state of original sin, the state of being separate from
God.
What is worse for the baby in the Christian view? Dying or having original sin? It is having original sin for that is the
state of being born estranged from God and not liking him – it might not
understand that it doesn’t like God but that makes no difference. If God saves a baby just because it dies then
why doesn’t he save it just because he wants it to like him and to forgive its
original sin? Furthermore, death, even
in babies, is a punishment for original sin according to the apostle Paul in
the Epistle to the Romans in the book God wrote, the Bible. A God then who saves a child because of death
and not because the child is in a state of sin without baptism which is a worse
state is perfectly capable of rejecting a child that died in original sin. And indeed he should for death is not the
worst state and is in fact what the child deserves.
The Church says that original sin is the state of being hostile to God from the first moment of your existence and this hostility is inherited from Adam who rebelled against God. So then the baby that is baptised doesn’t want to be baptised or healed of this sin for it doesn’t like God. Baptism is clearly opposed to the choice of the baby, the choice it would make if it could, and religious freedom. What about older people who get baptised? God’s grace can work on their minds and hearts to make them want deliverance from their antagonism towards God in baptism. This cannot happen with a baby. It would make more sense if the Church held that babies should not be baptised and that if they die they will grow up and have to make the same choice between Heaven and Hell as the rest of us.
CONCLUSION
Infant baptism is an initiation into dogmatic opposition to reason. And an initiation to superstition. It is pure exploitation of the child and seeks to make sure that the child’s knowledge of religion will be restricted to the biased and censored preaching that is given to society by the Church. The ceremony is an insult to the dignity of the child. The Mormon Church has a scripture the Book of Mormon that is additional to the Bible and it sternly warns that God will punish those who baptise children and that anybody who says a child needs baptism is showing their true nature and it is not a nice caring nature (“I know that it is solemn mockery before God that ye should baptize little children” – Moroni 8:9, “Awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism” Moroni 8:15). So even many religions agree with our analysis of the evils of infant baptism.
WORKS CONSULTED
12
All One Body – Why Don’t We Agree?
Erwin W Lutzer,
Baptism, Meaning, Mode & Subjects, Michael Kimmitt, K & M Books,
Trelawnyd, 1997
But the Bible Does not Say So, Rev Roberto Nisbet, Church Book
Room Press,
But What About the
Thief on the Cross? Cecil Willis, Guardian of Truth,
Christian Baptism, Philip Crowe, Mobray,
Covenant Reformed News, Volume 7, Number 13, Ballymena, Northern
Four Great Heresies, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord,
Handbook to the Controversy with
Is it necessary for you to be baptised to be saved? Hoyt H Houchen,
Guardian of Truth,
Is Water Baptism Essential to Salvation?
Curtis Hutson, Sword of the Lord, 1988
Jesus and the Four Gospels, John Drane, Lion, Herts, 1984
Objections to Roman Catholicism, Edited by Michael de la
Bedoyere, Constable,
Radio Replies, Vol 3, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies
Press,
Reason and Belief, Bland Blanschard, George Allen & Unwin Ltd,
Regeneration or the New Birth, A W Pink, Evangelical Press, Welwyn,
The Book of Mormon, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah
The Documents of Vatican II, Edited by Walter M Abbott SJ, Geoffrey
Chapman Ltd,
The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin, Hodder and
The Only Way of Salvation, H. A. Twelves, Christadelphian ALS,
Vicars of Christ, Peter de Rosa, Corgi,
When Critics Ask, Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, Victor Books, Scripture
Press Publications,
Why Baptism Really Matters, Fred Pearce, Christadelphian Publishing
Office,
Why Does God? Domenico Grasso SJ,
Why you Should be Baptized, Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God,
The WWW
Doctrinal Summary by Br Thomas Mary MICM.
This page informs us that Catholic teaching is that if you hear of the
Catholic Church and don’t join it or study it your damnation is
guaranteed. It affirms that babies that
die without baptism will be banned from Heaven forever.
19/11/07